International Law and Genocide

Writing on a very salient topic The International Herald Tribune reports on a very salient topic this week: the extent to which International Law has the power to prevent and punish genocide. Making reference to the original document on the issue, The Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the article notes that it has been nearly 60 years since it was introduced and yet many genocides have happened since; why?


Essentially, the argument follows that with all of the rhetoric on how to prevent genocide since the enactment of the Convention and the establishment of the ICC that would follow, though much later in 2002, it is a wonder why genocide has been allowed to recur. Having read it my sense was that the author felt that the actions taken in the name of these institutions have not done enough either to punish or prevent genocide, calling them frustratingly inadequate.


I would have to say that I agree with the author. Until more weight is put behind decisions handed down by the court and until swift and appropriate measures can be taken when it becomes apparent that genocide is starting anew the criminals of the world who have the power to enact genocidal campaigns will not take seriously the threats of justice being done upon them issued by the Hague. A big sticking point, at least in my mind, is the fact that the United States is a signatory but has not ratified the Rome Statute (the document that established the Court). If the most powerful democracy does not accord that much respect to such an important institution when genocide prevention is concerned why should anyone else take it seriously?